The Women’s Revolution in Iran:
Interview with Ramesh Sepehrrad
By: Ryan
Mauro
Ramesh Sepehrrad is political scientist
and president/founder of
the oldest Iranian women’s Organization in Washington DC: The National
Committee of Women for a Democratic Iran (est. 1990). Sepehrrad comes
from a
family of political prisoners with first hand knowledge of the Iranian
peoples’
suffering, particularly women, at the hands of the clerical regime. In
addition
to public speaking, she has been published in The Brown Journal of
World
Affairs, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The United Press
International – Outside View, Global Politician, American Chronicle,
Women
eNews, Feminist Voice, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, and
Women's
Caucus for Gender Justice Newsletter.
RS: Before 1979, women did not
have much
political or economic rights. They enjoyed some very basic social
rights under
the family act law in the areas of divorce and child custody. For this
reason,
women were an important player in the 1979 revolution, but
fundamentalists, led
by Ayatollah Khomeini, set the clock back for Iranian women. Under the
rule of
Vali-e-faqih (Supreme Leadership
of
clerics), aka Islamic Fundamentalism, women
have no
rights. The worldview of Islamic Fundamentalists describes women as a
source of
sin who must be controlled at all times. In the past 27 years, the
measure of
success of the Islamic Fundamentalists, be it turbaned leaders or not,
was the
depth of the suppression of women’s rights and activities. The constant
battles
among factions within Iranian regime are played out over women’s
rights, hejab
(compulsory dress-code for women) and public segregation.
RM:
How strong is the movement for democratic change in Iran?
RS: Given the women-hating
nature of the
regime in Tehran, one can measure the strength of democratic movements
in Iran
through the active involvement of women in both leadership or other
ranks of
the organized resistance movement. Tehran’s regime has the highest
number of female political execution in the world, even higher than
China. Yet,
women are not deterred and continue to challenge the regime
politically, socially
and ideologically. I must say for the first time in Iran’s
history,
women’s movement is very much political in nature. Over the past
several months,
women have held some of the largest rallies in Tehran demanding more
rights and
freedom. Their strategy is commendable because they ask for the very
basic
social and political rights such as divorce rights, child custody or
employment rights.
Iranian women know their very basic demands shakes the very foundation
of theocracy
in Tehran. Iranian women are fully aware that Tehran’s regime will
never heed
to their demands, yet they continue push their agenda which is
essentially a
regime change. They are not alone. They have coupled their efforts with
student
and labor movement in Iran. They also have a very strong presence
outside of
Iran. For example, Maryam Rajavi, leader of the organized Iranian
resistance movement in exile, has held numerous international
conference and
seminars
since 1990’s to raise awareness on the threat of Islamic
Fundamentalism. She has
met with world leaders in Europe to raise the voice of democracy in
Iran and
push for democratic change in Iran. This is a sign of strength both
inside and
outside of Iran.
RM:
What do you need from the West to cause change and what sort of change
do you
seek?
RS: Iranian women seek
democratic change
in Iran by the people and for the people of Iran. There is no need for
military
intervention and further talks or negotiation only legitimizes regime’s
terrorist
crimes and state-sponsorship of violence against women. Iranian people
ask the
west to isolate the regime politically, diplomatically and
economically. The
people of Iran can take care of the rest. The recent UN Security
Council
Resolution 1737 is a step in a right direction. Isolation and
international
pressure on Tehran’s regime empowers the Iranian people and weakens
Ahmadinejad’s regime. This can pave the way for change by the Iranian
people.
RM: Is regime change even possible in
Iran considering how brutal the regime suppresses dissent?
RS: Absolutely. The price of
freedom in
Iran is very high and the brutality of the regime has cost thousands of
lives,
but the resistance is also very strong. I am reminded of a message from
Valliollah Faiz-Mahdavi, a political prisoner who was murdered in
prison a few
months ago; who said: “In the course of my struggle I learned that for
freedom
fighters it is not all that important to personally see realized the
ultimate
aim of their efforts and sacrifice. What is paramount for them is
steadfastness
in struggle. I truly believe that freedom, democracy and justice are as
vital
to human life as the air one breathes. I thus permit myself to ask you
not to
abandon Iran’s just fight against the oppressive regime of the mullahs.
I also have
a few words for the leaders and minions of the regime: we will never
resign
ourselves to the ignominy of surrendering to your repressive
dictatorship, even
if it will cost us our lives.” Faiz-Mahdavi reminds us how Iranians
will undoubtedly
unseat the fundamentalist regime in Tehran.
RM: Looking at Iraq, the American people
are hesitant to endorse regime
change, due to the chaotic aftermath. Should the mullahs fall, who will
replace
them? How? Won't there be-infighting among people seeking to replace
the
mullahs?
RS: First, in Iran’s case
regime change
does not mean military attack and American people must understand the
26-year-old
call for regime change is coming from Iran not Washington. In 1981 a
broad
coalition of democratic Iranian organizations, groups and
personalities, was
founded in Tehran. This coalition, the National Council of Resistance
of Iran
(NCRI), has been on the forefront of calling for democratic change in
Iran.
They have been exposing regime’s human rights since the 1980’s,
terrorist
network and activities since the 1990’s and illegal nuclear activities
in the last 15 years. Although NCRI has been forced to
exile, they
have strong support among Iranians at home and abroad. Headquartered in
Europe,
NCRI have strong support among European parliamentarians and US
Congress.
Second, while Iranian people
and their
resistance are fully aware of the chaotic aftermath in Iraq, they have
been
exposing the hands of the Iranian regime acting as the engine of chaos
in Iraq.
Reports publishes in numerous Iraqi newspapers, Time magazine, LA
Times, Fox
News and elsewhere testifies on Tehran agenda and drive to never
tolerate
democratic governance in Baghdad. So,
by continued promotion of chaos in Iraq and unlawful nuclear
activities, Tehran
is boxing Washington and EU to choices between US-led military attacks
or negotiation
(appeasement). However, as Maryam Rajavi said in European
Parliament,
there is another option and that is change brought about by the Iranian
people
and the
Iranian Resistance.
This option will be costless
for American
people. The
war with
the Iranian regime is between the people of Iran and the regime in
Tehran.
Iranians are not asking for American soldier to fight their battle.
Instead, they
are asking America (Washington), to completely close the door on this
regime
and de-legitimize it politically and diplomatically. The rest is up to
Iranians
and their resistance movement. Because
of NCRI’s
comprehensive platform
to protect the rights of all citizens, there will not be any infighting
of any
nature. NCRI plan is to have a transitional government, led by Maryam
Rajavi as
its president-elect, for 6 months. After that, there will be a
nationwide
election where people can decide on the type of governance.
RM: How likely is it that there'd be civil
war in Iran as the various
minorities seek independence after the mullahs are overthrown?
RS: All minorities have seats in NCRI which acts as a parliament in exile. According to NCRI’s platforms, the rights of women, religious and ethnic minorities are guaranteed and protected. If there is going to be change by the people and their resistance movement (NCRI), the chance of civil war and sectarian conflict is zero. No to mention, Iran has a very strong history in its national pride and unity. Let us not forget, in its modern times, Iran has experienced two major popular revolutions: the anti-monarchic (1978-79) and Constitutional revolution (1906-1910). Neither one resulted in such conflicts; instead it enhanced the national unity which is now echoed in the NCRI.
RM: Should there be a Western
strike on Iran, how would the people of
Iran respond?
RS: Disappointed and
disenchanted. As
mentioned, there is no need for Western strike. The only way to defeat
the
threat from Tehran’s regime is to support the call of change by Iran’s
resistance
groups such as Maryam Rajavi’s organization.
RM: How do Iranians view the
Mujahideen-e-Khalq? What sort of reaction would occur if the U.S. were
to back the
group?
RS: Given the suppressive
nature of the
regime, no one can measure popularity of any political organizations.
This
regime does not adhere to any standards of liberal democracies which
makes it
difficult to assess the popularity of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK).
However,
one can certainly measure the Tehran’s fear of the effectiveness and
impact of
MEK in the society. According to a study conducted by a Washington
Think Tank,
Iran Policy Committee, the MEK is the topic of discussion over 230%
more often
than all other groups combined. The results suggest that the regime is
worried
about the MEK because of the latent and overt support the group has
within the
Iranian population and the capability of the MEK to facilitate regime
change.
In the short term, it helps
with the
expansion of the MEK’s intelligence network inside Iran on a variety of
issues
such as information about Iran’s nuclear and terrorist network
throughout the
Middle East, its support for chaos in Iraq, and a more detailed
understanding
of the political situation in Iran, including leadership issues and
popular
sentiment. In the long term it is a move in supporting and
strengthening
pro-democracy opposition in Iran that will deliver a more permanent
solution to
the threats posed by regime in Tehran. The fact is that the terrorist
designation
has hamstrung more than 90 percent of the social, political and
financial potentials of the MEK. If removed from the terror list, the
MEK can
utilize all
that effort toward organizing the opposition in and out of Iran.
RM:
How do you respond to experts like Ken Timmerman who claim the MEK is a
Marxist-Islamist terrorist group with little support inside Iran? Or
those that
point to Saddam Hussein’s sponsorship of MEK and use of the group to
suppress
internal strife?
RS: Other experts such as the
members of
Iran Policy Committee beg to differ with Mr. Timmerman. Clearly, an
objective
study on this group is in order. IPC experts have done an extensive
research on
these issues and published their findings on the MEK.
They have found that the phrase
(an
oxymoron) first came from the days of Shah in the 1970’s as a scare
factor in
the Iranian society. Shah’s secret police, SAVAK, manufactured this
phrase to
demonize the MEK and the current regime inherited it to further lobby
against
the MEK. I believe, looking at the published material and books by the
MEK (a
Muslim group), any expert and scholar can conclude MEK’s rejection of
Marxism.
An article by Dr. Safavi, a sociologist who has closely studied and
followed
the MEK activities, explains how Massoud Rajavi (leader of the MEK)
delivered a
series of lectures in Tehran University in late 1979 on the ideology of
the MEK.
He, in fact, saved his most extensive critical commentary for Marxist
materialistic epistemology. Still, ‘Marxist-Islamist’ has become a
catch phrase
among the MEK opponents who have not done their homework and used so
callously
by some experts.
On the issue of MEK’s relation
with
Saddam, the fact is, recently, Washington Times had a page on 5.2
million
Iraqis (of the voting population over 18) who declared their support
for the
MEK. Their declaration was first reflected in Iraqi, Middle Eastern and
Asian
newspaper. So, if indeed the MEK was used by Saddam to suppress Iraqis
why do
they enjoy such popularity among the Iraqi people? Some even
accuse the
MEK of killing the Kurds, yet in 2002, Reuters obtained a document from
a civil
suit in the Netherlands testifying that the MEK had no part in Saddam’s
brutal
operations against the Kurds. The document, signed by a principal
Kurdish
political official, said that the MEK was not involved in suppressing
the
Kurdish people neither during the uprising nor in its aftermath.
Furthermore, one
has to ask the question that with the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime
and 16
months investigation and interviews by several US agencies, where is
the
evidence on MEK’s involvement in any act against Iraqi people?
They have
not surfaced because there is none.
In July of 2004, the New York
Times
reported "there was no basis to charge any member of the group [MEK]
with
the violation of American law." In
fact, the Multi-National Force-Iraq in 2004 recognized the rights
of the MEK as "protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention."
So, just as the members of US congress called them a “legitimate
resistance
group”, the recent Iraqi declaration reads “The terrorist allegation
and
designation of the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran that with
120,000
martyrs is the prime victim of state-sponsored terrorism is neither
legitimate
nor credible and it should not be regarded as a criterion for relations
with
this organization.”
On the issue of popularity,
experts like Dr.
Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Committee acknowledge the
popular
base of the MEK given their extensive access to Iran’s nuclear
intelligence
(Congressional briefing in summer of 2003). Ultimately, the answer to
the
question on MEK’s popularity comes out of the ballot boxes in a free
and fair
election in Iran. This has been and remains to be political challenge
to
Tehran’s regime. No matter what the outcome will be, let us focus on
making
sure such elections can take place in Iran.
To conclude, we must recognize
the
political realities in Iraq, Iran and the role of Tehran’s most
formidable
opposition, the MEK. I sincerely hope that some of our experts look
beyond the
catch phrases and see the fact for what they are and not what Tehran’s
regime
has painted them to be.
To see more of Ryan Mauro's
interviews and insightful articles, request to be added to his
newsletter by writing him at TDCAnalyst@aol.com